Notice of proposed bylaws amendments for October Exec Board meeting

[Scott Forbes]

Hello Executive Board (and bcc’d to the BRC mailing list),

Pursuant to Section 11.2.2 of the bylaws, notice is hereby given that the Bylaws and Rules Committee (“BRC”) will introduce the following proposed amendments for consideration at the Exec Board’s October meeting, along with the committee’s recommendations for or against adopting.

Several of these amendments were proposed on the floor at the February 2019 PCO meeting where major bylaw reforms were adopted. At that meeting, the PCOs voted to refer seven floor amendments to the BRC. The BRC reviewed these floor amendments and voted on them in February 2020, and had planned to put them on the agenda of the Exec Board’s March 2020 meeting… but then the pandemic hit and the March meeting was canceled. The BRC’s priority then shifted to hammering out rules for holding virtual meetings, and we’ve only recently returned our focus to regular bylaws maintenance.

The original language of the floor amendments is still online at https://www.kcdems.org/bylaws-floor-amendments/. Two of the nine floor amendments were adopted by the PCOs and are already part of the current bylaws; the BRC’s recommendations are with regard to the other seven. The BRC is also proposing three amendments of its own, as discussed below.

BRC recommendations regarding the seven floor amendments at the February 2019 PCO meeting that were referred to the BRC for consideration:

The BRC has numbered the nine floor amendments at the February 2019 PCO meeting in the order listed on the kcdems.org webpage. Amendments #1 and #3 were adopted by the PCOs; the other seven were referred to the BRC.

Floor Amendment #1: (Adopted by the PCOs in February 2019.)

Floor Amendment #2: Endorsement Committee Role & Responsibility (Gloria Hatcher-Mays)

The BRC recommends against adopting this proposed amendment.

This proposal would replace the Endorsements Committee in the current bylaws with an Endorsements and Election Support Committee, which would have additional responsibilities including “work[ing] with LPOs to identify and prepare candidates to run for election.” The BRC identified a number of issues that caused it to recommend against adoption, including:

• Making a single committee responsible for both recruiting and endorsing candidates would cause conflicts of interest if, e.g., the committee invested time and effort in recruiting a candidate and then a better candidate jumped into the race.
• As written, this proposal would back out the changes to the bylaws that prevent KCDCC from making endorsements that conflict with the LDs in single-LD races.
• The BRC felt that this amendment goes into a level of detail regarding committee responsibilities that would be better suited to either committee-level standing rules or to Section 8.1 of the bylaws, which specifies rules that apply to all committees.

Floor Amendment #3: (Adopted by the PCOs in February 2019.)

Floor Amendment #4: Composition of the Exec Board (Chris Roberts)

The BRC recommends against adopting this proposed amendment.

This proposal would change the bylaws language that assigns two representatives on the Executive Board to LDs with more than X% of their precincts in King County, and assigns one representative to LDs with fewer than X%. The proposal would change X from 80% to 25%, which would have no immediate effect (as currently districted, there are no LDs with a percentage of precincts in King County that falls between 25% and 80%), but might have an impact in 2022 when redistricting takes place.

However, this proposal would also remove LD chairs as voting members of the Exec Board, and the BRC recommends against adopting the proposal for that reason. We've confirmed with the author that this proposal was written under the assumption that the PCOs would vote to remove LD chairs from the Exec Board at the February 2019 meeting. However, since the PCOs did not select that option, adopting this amendment as written would effectively undo the PCOs’ decision, which was not the intent of the author.

The BRC also noted that, as currently written, the bylaws are silent as to what should happen if an LD has exactly 80% of its precincts in King County. While it’s unlikely that the redistricting commission will hit this particular bullseye, the BRC will nonetheless propose an amendment next year to address that scenario before it comes up. 

Floor Amendment #5: Vacancies in certain KCDCC offices after September 1 (Chris Roberts)

The BRC recommends adopting this proposed amendment with one change.

This proposal would amend Section 5.3.1, which specifies that a PCO meeting must be held to fill a vacancy in the office of County Chair, First Vice-Chair, or State Committee Member, to add the sentence “If a vacancy occurs after September 1 of an even-numbered year, the vacancy shall be filled by election at a PCO meeting or at the next regular meeting of the Executive Board for which sufficient notice can be provided.” The author’s stated rationale was that calling a PCO meeting 60 days before a presidential or congressional election was not the best use of time or resources.

The BRC voted to recommend adoption of this amendment with one change: Replacing the word “shall” with “may,” in order to give the Exec Board the option of allowing a short-term vacancy to remain unfilled until the next reorganization meeting. The consensus was that, past a certain point (e.g., if a state committee member resigns in October of an even-numbered year, given that the next state committee meeting would be in January), it probably isn’t worth filling the vacancy.

Floor Amendment #6: Duties of the Endorsements Committee (Chris Roberts)

The BRC recommends against adopting this proposed amendment, and recommends adopting BRC Amendment #1 instead.

This proposal would delete Section 8.3.3 of the bylaws, which specifies the duties of the Endorsements Committee. The author’s stated rationale was that Section 8.3.3 overlaps Section 8.3.6, which specifies which candidates and measures are eligible for the KCDCC’s endorsement.

The BRC recognized the need to reconcile Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.6 of the bylaws, which as written led to confusion as to the role of the Endorsements Committee during this year’s endorsement meetings. In particular, the bylaws are unclear as to whether the Endorsements Committee is expected to interview and make recommendations regarding a candidate in a single-LD race who had been endorsed by their LD. These bylaws also contain statements that could be read as conflicting with regard to who is eligible for endorsement: The intent was to specify who was eligible for endorsement by going through the Endorsements Committee and who was eligible by going through the LDs, but in isolation each section appears to make a definitive statement about eligibility. However, the BRC believed that simply deleting Section 8.3.3 would not resolve all of these issues, and instead recommends adopting BRC Amendment #1 as proposed below.

Floor Amendment #7: Reorganization Procedures (Chris Roberts)

The BRC recommends against adopting this proposed amendment.

This proposal would strike Section 10.2 of the bylaws, which specifies the procedure for calling LD reorganization meetings, and replace it with "The County Chair shall call a meeting of all elected PCOs in each legislative district wholly within King County for the purpose of reorganizing the Legislative District Organization, in accordance with the Charter and Bylaws of the Washington State Democrats.” The author’s stated reasons for this change were that 

• an LD might choose to reorganize before the KCDCC reorganization meeting, which is not permitted under the current bylaws, and 
• the KCDCC County Chair is only responsible for calling reorganization meetings of LDs that are wholly within King County.

The BRC recommended against this proposal because the State Party bylaws specify that LD reorganization meetings “shall be organized in accordance with rules passed by the county central committee in those counties in which there are two or more complete legislative districts.” While the 2019 bylaw reforms recognize that the KCDCC is a peer to other LPOs in King County, the State Party does assign the KCDCC the duty to organize LD reorg meetings. The BRC also noted that the KCDCC Chair is responsible for calling (i.e., giving notice to the affected PCOs in King County) reorg meetings for LDs that span more than one county, and the current bylaw does not appear to be interfering with our arrangements with other counties to share responsibility for running these meetings.

Floor Amendment #8: Membership Dues (Chris Roberts)

The BRC recommends against adopting this proposed amendment, and instead recommends adopting the alternative described below.

This proposal would delete the second paragraph of Section 3.3 of the bylaws. (“The KCDCC shall not impose membership dues on individuals or on the King County Young Democrats. The KCDCC may, however, solicit donations from any individual or organization as part of the KCDCC's regular fundraising activities.”) The author’s stated reasons for this change were: “Unnecessary limitation on the powers of KCDCC. Members are defined in section 3.1 and the first paragraph reiterates that participation shall not be denied for failure to pay membership dues.”

The BRC voted to recommend adoption of an alternative amendment that would strike only the second sentence of the second paragraph (“The KCDCC shall not impose membership dues on individuals or on the King County Young Democrats. The KCDCC may, however, solicit donations from any individual or organization as part of the KCDCC's regular fundraising activities.”). The first paragraph of Section 3.3 specifies that the Executive Board may establish dues to be paid by LDs, and is silent with regard to individuals or KCYD, so the first sentence of the second paragraph is not redundant—and, in any case, the BRC expressed a desire to retain that sentence as a matter of principle. With regard to the second sentence, the BRC’s rationale for recommending its deletion was that it wasn’t clear whether “irregular” fundraising activities were being ruled out (or what it would mean if they were ruled out).

Floor Amendment #9: Non-Voting Members (Chris Roberts) + Amendment to Floor Amendment #9 (Annabelle Backman)

The BRC recommends adopting this proposed amendment along with the amendment to it that was on the floor at the time it was referred to the BRC.

As originally written, this proposal would have deleted all of Section 3.2 of the bylaws. Section 3.2 defines the term “non-voting member," and grants non-voting membership to Democratic officeholders; DNC, State Party, and LPO officers who reside in King County; and “any other person who provides financial or organizational support to the KCDCC, including serving on a KCDCC committee or volunteering, and who agrees to become a member and support the principles of the KCDCC.” The stated reasons for moving to delete this section were that:

• The “any other person” clause allowed any donor to become a non-voting member, which allowed potential shenanigans such as Tim Eyman donating $1 and then showing up to make motions and steal chairs.
• The chair or the body can grant speaking privileges or other limited rights to guests at a meeting, so defining a "non-voting" class of member serves no purpose.
• “KCDCC meeting” could be read as including PCO meetings, Exec Board meetings, and committee meetings, raising the possibility of, e.g., non-voting “members” attending deliberations of the Endorsements Committee.

During the February 2019 PCO meeting, the PCOs passed two amendments to this proposal, and a third amendment was on the floor when both it and the proposal were referred to the BRC. As such, the proposal as referred to the BRC retained the language defining the term "non-voting member," but struck all language that granted non-voting membership rights to anyone.

The amendment to this proposal, which was also referred to the BRC, was to un-strike the language that granted non-voting membership to Democratic officeholders and to DNC, State Party, and LPO officers who reside in King County. The net effect on Section 3.2 would thus be to delete only the “any other person” clause.

The BRC voted to recommend adoption of both Floor Amendment #9 and the amendment to Floor Amendment #9, with the net effect being to delete only the “any other person” clause from Section 3.2 of the bylaws. The BRC noted a number of other issues with this section that need to be addressed (e.g., does “Democratic public officeholder” include or exclude Democrats who hold 'non-partisan' public offices, does “officers of the KCDCC” include committee chairs and vice-chairs, etc.), but agreed that these issues should be addressed by a separate bylaws amendment, to be proposed by the BRC at a later time, rather than trying to incorporate them into this proposal.

BRC Amendment #1: Endorsement eligibility language cleanup

The BRC recommends adopting the following amendments to Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.6 of the bylaws to clean up the language regarding eligibility for KCDCC endorsements.

Section 8.3.3: Duties

A candidate or measure is eligible for endorsement consideration by the Endorsements Committee if the jurisdiction of their election intersects with King County and at least two LDs.

As described below, the committee shall defer to the Legislative District Organizations with regard to recommended endorsements of other candidates and campaigns.

Section 8.3.6: Endorsements

The Executive Board shall meet to consider the committee's recommendations for endorsements prior to the primary election each year and again prior to the general election each year. A candidate or position shall be eligible for KCDCC’s endorsement only if the candidate or position is either (a) considered by the Endorsements Committee, or (b) endorsed by the Legislative District Organization(s) representing a majority of King County voters eligible to vote for that candidate or position. 

The Executive Board may, by majority vote, endorse any candidate or position that is recommended by the committee or endorsed by the relevant Legislative District Organization(s). By two-thirds vote, the Executive Board may endorse a candidate or position that was considered but not recommended by the committee.

The KCDCC shall defer to the Legislative District Organizations with regard to endorsements of other candidates and measures that appear on ballots in a single legislative district. Other candidates and measures shall be eligible to receive the KCDCC's endorsement only if they receive the endorsements of Legislative District Organizations representing a majority of King County voters eligible to vote for that candidate or measure. Candidates and measures that appear on ballots in a single legislative district shall be eligible to receive the KCDCC's endorsement only if they are endorsed by the Legislative District Organization for that legislative district. If the relevant Legislative District Organization endorses multiple candidates in a particular single-district race, then the KCDCC shall endorse either all of these candidates or no candidate. The Executive Board may, by majority vote, endorse any such candidates or measures. 

The intent of these amendments is to clarify the ways to become eligible to receive the KCDCC’s endorsement:

• For candidates and measures that appear on the ballot in a single LD:
• By receiving the endorsement of the LD. The LD’s endorsement serves as a recommendation to the KCDCC, which can adopt the LD’s recommendation by majority vote. The Endorsements Committee is not expected to play a role in this scenario, although there’s nothing in the bylaws that prevents the Endorsements Committee from making a recommendation (either for or against adopting the LD’s recommendation) if they choose to do so.
• For candidates and measures that appear on the ballot in multiple LDs:
• If considered and recommended by the Endorsements Committee, the KCDCC can endorse by majority vote;
• If considered but not recommended by the Endorsements Committee, the KCDCC can endorse by two-thirds vote; or
• If endorsed by LDs representing a majority of voters eligible to vote for the candidate or measure, the KCDCC can endorse by majority vote. This is an unlikely and more difficult path to eligibility, but covers a handful of edge cases (e.g., the Seattle City Council district that is almost entirely within the 34th LD) and provides a break-glass option if the Endorsements Committee is unable to make timely recommendations for any reason.

This was the intent of the bylaws as drafted, but the language in 8.3.3 and 8.3.6 doesn’t convey this intent as clearly as it should.

The BRC has also noted that the Endorsements Committee typically doesn’t make recommendations regarding ballot measures, and that further amendments to Section 8 may be needed to make our bylaws more consistent with that practice. (In practice the Exec Board's endorsements of ballot measures have all passed by overwhelming margins, so the question of whether ballot measure endorsements require a majority or two-thirds has never come up.)

BRC Amendment #2: Make language in Section 7.3.2 consistent with rest of bylaws

The BRC recommends a minor amendment to Section 7.3.2 of the bylaws:

Section 7.3.2: Quorum at Executive Board Meetings

A quorum of the Executive Board shall be 40% of those eligible to vote. For purposes of determining a quorum, valid proxies alternates shall be counted and unfilled vacancies shall not be counted. 

This change makes Section 7.3.2 consistent with the rest of the bylaws, which use the word “alternate” rather than “proxy.”

BRC Amendment #3: Raise the “campaign contributions” budget cap to 30%

At the request of the Finance Committee, the BRC reviewed Section 9.7.3 of the bylaws and voted to recommend amending it as follows:

Section 9.7.3: Campaign Contributions Cap

Campaign contributions may only be made only from a line item in the budget that is set aside exclusively for that purpose. If the budget includes a line item for campaign contributions, the line item may not exceed 10% 30% of the total budget. The line item does not need to be earmarked for specific campaigns, and the maximum amount that may be contributed to any individual campaign may be up to the total amount in the line item.

The intent of this bylaw was to impose fiscal discipline on an organization that, in past years, had bankrupted itself by giving all its money to candidates and then not having anything left to cover day-to-day expenses. The cap and other provisions in the bylaws are intended to encourage the KCDCC to make strategic decisions about candidate spending (i.e., to spend in races where our spending might tip the balance) and to invest more in year-round organizing and party-building activities, such as PCO recruiting and supporting LDs. The cap was also set at 10% because the drafters of the 2019 bylaws reform proposal believed that no one would ever request that the cap be lowered.

In practice, the KCDCC hit its 10% cap relatively quickly in 2019 by making an in-kind donation (a video) to SeaTac City Council candidates, and was then unable to provide any further direct assistance to campaigns. The Finance Committee believes there were opportunities to help other campaigns that the KCDCC could have undertaken without jeopardizing the organization’s financial stability, and further believes that the 10% cap may have hampered our fundraising efforts: Donors may have been reluctant to give with the understanding that only 10% of their donations would go directly to campaigns.

The BRC also discussed the KCDCC’s process for deciding which campaigns to support directly, with some members expressing that the process is relatively opaque, especially for first-time candidates. Members also noted that the cap was reached last year after passing a single motion from the Finance Committee to produce the SeaTac video, and that the Exec Board may have voted differently had it understood that the motion would represent the KCDCC’s only direct support for campaigns that year. We recognized, however, that these issues were largely out of the BRC’s scope, which was limited to “should the bylaw be amended to raise the cap.” After debate (which included discussion of whether to eliminate the cap entirely, keep it as it is, raise it to 15%, etc.), the BRC voted to recommend amending Section 9.7.3 to raise the cap to 30%.

Thanks,

— Scott